These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Unbiased Criticisms for the Game
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Deck Cadelanne
CAStabouts
#181 - 2015-10-24 17:55:44 UTC
Odie McCracken wrote:
So you're saying a day one character should be able to win a 1v1 vs a 10 year vet?



Yes. But he's a game design genius. Haven't you been reading?

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."

- Hunter S. Thompson
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#182 - 2015-10-24 17:56:36 UTC
Deck Cadelanne wrote:
Odie McCracken wrote:
So you're saying a day one character should be able to win a 1v1 vs a 10 year vet?



Yes. But he's a game design genius. Haven't you been reading?

Misrepresenting an argument to more efficiently counter it is a strawman.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
Odie McCracken
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2015-10-24 17:57:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Odie McCracken
Once again, a question is dismissed without any response.

Dude, you're the one coming here making claims you need to back them up. Any time anyone asks you a question you respond with a non answer or another question (which is rude).

You don't have any proof or any leg to stand on. There's nothing to dispute because you haven't given us anything.

So, again, are you saying the day one character should be able to compete with a 10 year, or even a 1 year vet?

Edit: also, this thread should be in the Features & Ideas forum.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2015-10-24 18:00:27 UTC
Odie McCracken wrote:
Once again, a question is dismissed without any response.

Dude, you're the one coming here making claims you need to back them up. Any time anyone asks you a question you respond with a non answer or another question (which is rude).

You don't have any proof or any leg to stand on. There's nothing to dispute because you haven't given us anything.

So, again, are you saying the day one character should be able to compete with a 10 year, or even a 1 year vet?

Yes, and can you say why they shouldn't? The game is simple, and they should at least have the opportunity to learn or just follow orders in an appropriate ship..

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#185 - 2015-10-24 18:01:44 UTC
Dror wrote:
Odie McCracken wrote:
So you're saying a day one character should be able to win a 1v1 vs a 10 year vet?

Appeal to extremes. The fleet comment is about fitting viability, not just skillfulness.

SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Here's the word you previously left out because you're a willfully dishonest scumbag: CLASS. It says any character CLASS. It is talking about the dissatisfaction a player feels when they are locked into a non-competitive class. It has absolutely ******* nothing to do with not being able to compete with a "higher level" character. In fact, nothing in the study does. You lied to make it sound as if it did.

How is "class" more relevant than "equal opportunity to win"?




It's not that one is "more relevant" - it's that it's the actual noun that comprised the subject of the sentence. You changed that noun, and the semantic meaning of the sentence, to make it sound like the study says that every character should have an equal opportunity to win every fight, when it doesn't - instead it simply states (literally asserts, verbatim) that a skill-point system is preferable to a class system.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Market McSelling Alt
Doomheim
#186 - 2015-10-24 18:08:22 UTC
Dror wrote:
Deck Cadelanne wrote:
Odie McCracken wrote:
So you're saying a day one character should be able to win a 1v1 vs a 10 year vet?



Yes. But he's a game design genius. Haven't you been reading?

Misrepresenting an argument to more efficiently counter it is a strawman.



Actually if you want to nitpick what he did there was a debate tactic under the category of Ad Hominem and more specifically a Genetic Fallacy attack.

I thought you knew all this stuff?

CCP Quant: Of all those who logon in Eve, 1.5% do Incursions, 13.8% PVP and 19.2% run Missions while 22.4% mine.

40.7% Join a fleet. The idea that Eve is a PVP game is false, the social fabric is in Missions and Mining.
Odie McCracken
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2015-10-24 18:08:37 UTC
Dror wrote:
Yes, and can you say why they shouldn't? The game is simple, and they should at least have the opportunity to learn or just follow orders in an appropriate ship..


I would say because people play an MMO to progress a bit each time they play. People, myself included, like to see our characters grow and gain abilities. The sp system in Eve is a unique way for a game to do that. Sure someone can progress in their physical ship flying skill and knowledge of the game, but it's the skill progression that makes our characters what they are.

This isn't just Eve, I'd ask you to find an RPG or MMO that doesn't have some sort of system like this. Even twitch FPS games are having "level ups" to unlock new guns.

If you take that away in Eve you are just going to alienate the existing playerbase. Maybe you're idea might work in another game, but I would say not Eve.

I honestly feel our perspectives are very different on this. I really just can't see the things you are trying to put forth, sorry. I really don't think you understand game design.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#188 - 2015-10-24 18:10:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Dror wrote:
How is "class" more relevant than "equal opportunity to win"?

It's not that one is "more relevant" - it's that it's the actual noun that comprised the subject of the sentence. You changed that noun, and the semantic meaning of the sentence, to make it sound like the study says that every character should have an equal opportunity to win every fight, when it doesn't - instead it simply states (literally asserts, verbatim) that a skill-point system is preferable to a class system.

Here it is requoted for context:

Quote:
A primary goal of most MMORPGs is to acquire objects to exert control over the character and the virtual world. However, because some character classes or skill sets can easily defeat characters of other classes or skills in many MMORPGs, developers should consider a skill-point character development system over a class-based system to balance play and to provide an opportunity for any character class engaged in combat to win.


It's precedent is so:
Quote:
..An ownership-enhancing strategy should lead game players to perceive a higher level of control over their character, which in turn should lead to strong psychological ownership of the character. In general, players in MMORPGs manage their own character, and feelings of ownership emerge when players learn to control their character effectively..


Keys, here:

  • Control over the character and its impact

  • Balancing the playing field because of how some classes directly counter others; classes may still be required

  • Winning

    • ..

    "SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
    SurrenderMonkey
    State Protectorate
    Caldari State
    #189 - 2015-10-24 18:15:38 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
    Dror wrote:
    SurrenderMonkey wrote:
    Dror wrote:
    How is "class" more relevant than "equal opportunity to win"?

    It's not that one is "more relevant" - it's that it's the actual noun that comprised the subject of the sentence. You changed that noun, and the semantic meaning of the sentence, to make it sound like the study says that every character should have an equal opportunity to win every fight, when it doesn't - instead it simply states (literally asserts, verbatim) that a skill-point system is preferable to a class system.

    Here it is requoted for context:

    Quote:
    A primary goal of most MMORPGs is to acquire objects to exert control over the character and the virtual world. However, because some character classes or skill sets can easily defeat characters of other classes or skills in many MMORPGs, developers should consider a skill-point character development system over a class-based system to balance play and to provide an opportunityfor any character class engaged in combat to win.


    It's precedent is so:
    Quote:
    ..An ownership-enhancing strategy should lead game players to perceive a higher level of control over their character, which in turn should lead to strong psychological ownership of the character. In general, players in MMORPGs manage their own character, and feelings of ownership emerge when players learn to control their character effectively..


    Keys, here:

  • Control over the character and its impact

  • Balancing the playing field because of how some classes directly counter others; classes may still be required

  • Winning


    • Wow. You are literally just making things up, eh? Your entire strategy, at this point, seems contingent on the hope that nobody else will read what was actually written, and instead rely on your intentionally deceitful interpretation of what it actually said.

    "Help, I'm bored with missions!"

    http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
    Odie McCracken
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #190 - 2015-10-24 18:18:15 UTC
    Dror wrote:


  • Control over the character and its impact

  • Balancing the playing field because of how some classes directly counter others; classes may still be required

  • Winning


    • 1. SP (or any other progression system from other games) give you this. In fact I would say removing sp would destroy this in Eve.

    2. Everyone has access to the same skills and the same ability to buy them. the field is incredibly balanced in Eve.

    3. Like Charlie Sheen, anyone can (and does) 'win' in Eve.

    What is winning in Eve anyway? Wining combat? Cornering the market? Holding Sov? It can be many things for different people.
    Dror
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #191 - 2015-10-24 18:32:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
    Odie McCracken wrote:
    Dror wrote:
    Yes, and can you say why they shouldn't? The game is simple, and they should at least have the opportunity to learn or just follow orders in an appropriate ship..


    I would say because people play an MMO to progress a bit each time they play. People, myself included, like to see our characters grow and gain abilities. The sp system in Eve is a unique way for a game to do that. Sure someone can progress in their physical ship flying skill and knowledge of the game, but it's the skill progression that makes our characters what they are.

    This isn't just Eve, I'd ask you to find an RPG or MMO that doesn't have some sort of system like this. Even twitch FPS games are having "level ups" to unlock new guns.

    If you take that away in Eve you are just going to alienate the existing playerbase. Maybe you're idea might work in another game, but I would say not Eve.

    I honestly feel our perspectives are very different on this. I really just can't see the things you are trying to put forth, sorry. I really don't think you understand game design.

    For 99% of characters, none are recognized in-game just because of SP. How much better would it be if a character provided industry or newsworthy combat.. not only for his crew, but also for all involved?

    Whether or not you are finding rapport with the very clear statements of the research is no suggestion on the validity of the information. It's correlating effectiveness with loyalty. That seems to explain the low PCU for what's probably the deepest game in the industry.

    Like, is the implication that a veteran receiving x00M SP would be awful?

    Odie McCracken wrote:
    Dror wrote:


  • Control over the character and its impact

  • Balancing the playing field because of how some classes directly counter others; classes may still be required

  • Winning


    • 1. SP (or any other progression system from other games) give you this. In fact I would say removing sp would destroy this in Eve.

    2. Everyone has access to the same skills and the same ability to buy them. the field is incredibly balanced in Eve.

    3. Like Charlie Sheen, anyone can (and does) 'win' in Eve.

    What is winning in Eve anyway? Wining combat? Cornering the market? Holding Sov? It can be many things for different people.

    We've already established that competitiveness is correlative with character control and thus ownership and thus game loyalty.

    Splitting up skills through alts is no manner of "character loyalty".

    More on point, how can a newbie win if he can't get the tools?

    "SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
    Odie McCracken
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #192 - 2015-10-24 18:36:41 UTC
    There's nothing stopping a newbie from getting any of the tools in Eve besides their own attitude.

    Agree to disagree I guess. Good luck with your insanity, maybe you'll have better luck in the Features & Ideas forum.
    Dror
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #193 - 2015-10-24 18:55:36 UTC
    Odie McCracken wrote:
    There's nothing stopping a newbie from getting any of the tools in Eve besides their own attitude.

    Agree to disagree I guess. Good luck with your insanity, maybe you'll have better luck in the Features & Ideas forum.


    Aerasia wrote:
    The numbers aren't public, but I'd imagine most people who trial EVE don't sub.
    50% of those who do sub are gone within a month.
    90% of those who do sub are gone within 6 months.
    What represents the overall churn for EVE? 99.9% no longer playing? 99.999%? More?
    Of that small percent, 25,000 characters are purchased each year to skip the SP grind.

    "A vanishingly small, nearly imperceptible percentage of people can stomach the SP system and therefore it's fine." isn't a convincing argument.

    "SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
    Deck Cadelanne
    CAStabouts
    #194 - 2015-10-24 19:03:38 UTC
    Actually, OP is completely immune to logic or reason and apparently incapable of recognizing this.

    Frankly, OP is nuts.

    Let's stop feeding this troll and move along. Nothing to see here.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."

    - Hunter S. Thompson
    Gneeznow
    Ship spinners inc
    #195 - 2015-10-24 19:03:46 UTC
    I can't believe I read all that waffle and jargon, I should have just looked at the 'likes' the OP got (which is zero, for a 10 page thread) and just moved on with my life based on that.
    Deck Cadelanne
    CAStabouts
    #196 - 2015-10-24 19:09:23 UTC
    Gneeznow wrote:
    I can't believe I read all that waffle and jargon, I should have just looked at the 'likes' the OP got (which is zero, for a 10 page thread) and just moved on with my life based on that.


    I feel dirty for having replied. Might go drink a bit and shoot some space pixels now to make up for it.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."

    - Hunter S. Thompson
    Dror
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #197 - 2015-10-24 21:45:16 UTC
    Dror wrote:
    Thierry Orlenard wrote:
    Dror wrote:

    It's a misrepresentation of what's being said.

    Are Goons challenged? Point stands.


    So you're just going to ignore the question -- and the underlying fact, which is that this game's mechanics do, in fact, allow for starter corps to be competitive-- but again, as long as they work for it ( there's that word again).

    As for your question, "Are Goons challenged?" I'll say this. Surely you have some clue of the effort it takes to maintain the empire they're built. The infrastructure, the diplomacy, the military training and man hours it takes those guys to keep what they have. Pretty sure they've got a few close friends keeping an eye on them at all times for any signs of weakness. No one has it easy here, bud.

    Can you please describe how the inaccessibility of equipment required to either support sov through challenges, or to challenge sovs that have more SP is "being competitive"? Can you define how a 30M SP character referring a fresh set of subs can form a fleet with them and have them in practical fittings for, say, thriving in the T3D meta?

    Guessing that's a no, then.

    "SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
    Mag's
    Azn Empire
    #198 - 2015-10-24 22:40:47 UTC
    I imagine asking Dror for directions, would go something like this:

    Me: "Excuse me Sir, but could you tell me the way to the center of York from here?"

    Dror: "Why yes, it's eleven o'clock."

    Me: "Erm, thanks. Now those directions please?"

    Dror: "No problem. Time is a motivator." *walks away*

    Straight

    Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
    Bobb Bobbington
    Rattini Tribe
    Minmatar Fleet Alliance
    #199 - 2015-10-24 23:01:11 UTC
    Can I just point out, again, how us simply being here refutes your point? If they're design was a bad idea there's no way they'd have made it 11 (12?) years

    This is a signature.

    It has a 25m signature.

    No it's not a cosmic signature.

    Probably.

    Btw my corp's recruiting.
    Dror
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #200 - 2015-10-24 23:05:09 UTC
    Bobb Bobbington wrote:
    Can I just point out, again, how us simply being here refutes your point? If they're design was a bad idea there's no way they'd have made it 11 (12?) years

    Yet, probably a huge percentage of the forums would criticize some design crux of WoW's popularity.. It says nothing.

    "SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.